Agent Provocateur Attacks Cabbie?

[Kirk Freeman]

Apparently yet another group is attempting to incite further violence in this country using an agent provocateur. The Muslim cabbie that was attacked in NYC today was attacked by a Left-wing stringer.

Alleged anti-Muslim attacker works at pro-Park51 group - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

We've had these discussions at INGO before but I see no reason to change my opinion that political violence always comes from the Left.

 

[dross]

We've had these discussions at INGO before but I see no reason to change my opinion that political violence always comes from the Left.

By definition it almost must. Using force to enforce political beliefs is a tenet of the left and an anathema to the right.

Some will say the Klan or the Nazis are examples of violence from the right, but a closer look reveals that these philosophies are collectivist, and properly placed on the left.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

By definition it almost must. Using force to enforce political beliefs is a tenet of the left and an anathema to the right.

Some will say the Klan or the Nazis are examples of violence from the right, but a closer look reveals that these philosophies are collectivist, and properly placed on the left.

Violence in America is usually done by lefties.


Dross perhaps you could PM how Klan/Nazis equates to left. I dont understand the conclusion.

I think it's a far cry to suggest Conservativism doesnt has it's own skeletons.

PS. for the record, I believe West Boro Baptist is a Lefty invention used to discredit and shame a certain belief.

 

[lashicoN]

Some will say the Klan or the Nazis are examples of violence from the right, but a closer look reveals that these philosophies are collectivist, and properly placed on the left.

Violence in America is usually done by lefties.


Dross perhaps you could PM how Klan/Nazis equates to left. I dont understand the conclusion.

They believe in the group, not the individual. They believe in the group, not individual liberty. They don't believe in freedom and they don't want anyone other than themselves being armed or having a say in anything.

Sounds pretty Left-Wing to me. I've always though Nazis and Clansmen were left-wing. Isn't that why we call Obama a fascist?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

They believe in the group, not the individual. They believe in the group, not individual liberty. They don't believe in freedom and they don't want anyone other than themselves being armed or having a say in anything.

Sounds pretty Left-Wing to me. I've always though Nazis and Clansmen were left-wing. Isn't that why we call Obama a fascist?

Thanks for clearing it up for me. I wont agree, but thanks.



Nothing new my Nordic brother

 

[lashicoN]

I would appreciate if you could tell me why you disagree. Perhaps you'll change my mind. I'm not set in stone, here.

 

[dross]

Collectivism can best be understood as its opposition to individualism.

Individualism holds that only an individual may possess rights, and that all individuals are equal under the law. Society, the collective, is subordinate to individual rights. If a conflict exists between society and the individual, the individual's rights trump the good to society.

Collectivism holds that the individual is subordinate to society. If for instance, society determines that everyone equal under the law is not in the best interest of the collective, those rights are infringed. In fact, collectivism doesn't recognize individual rights, though it might pay individual rights lip service if it benefits the collective.

Fascism is a leftist philosophy. Simply put, the individual is subordinate to the state. For instance, the belief that it's better to put an innocent man in prison rather than risk a guilty one going free is a fascist manifestation of collectivist philosophy. The fascist says that an innocent man in prison harms no one but the innocent man, whereas a free guilty man will harm society. This is a collectivist view.

The Klan view is the lowest, basest, most disgusting collectivist view of all. It's gutter collectivism. It recognizes groups of people and would recognize or fail to recognize rights based on the group a person belonged to by accident of his birth. Ignoring completely the INDIVIDUAL differences of both the preferred and the despised group. Not only is this form of collectivism as evil as the other forms, it's also intellectually inferior.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

dross, I understand your point I am speaking from the American political debate.

Remember how the Left began squawking about assassination concerns over Obama in 2007?

Obama has nothing to worry about as the violence comes from the Democrats, not Republicans. Heck, the Left made a movie about killing Bush.

Look, here's yet another example: Carnahan Confirms Powers Firebomb Story

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I would appreciate if you could tell me why you disagree. Perhaps you'll change my mind. I'm not set in stone, here.

I am unable to formulate my opinion, causing a needless stir on the subject. Because of such, I dont seek to change your opinion.

I'll say that Collectivism exist, perhaps yes in Klan/Nazism - However, it's applicable to look at they're ideological opponents and see a Collectivism there, too.

Traditionalism vs Neo

Founders vs Modern

I dont see Collectivism as contrary to Individualism, but complimentry, I am perhaps out of my league, or last not on the same thought.

You have a Norwegian ancestry. They're Society only worked because of the Community, being weak or as strong as the Community pulled it's weight; Still maintaining individual rights, not too different from our own, which isnt too surprising considering the heritage of America's founding.

Im curious, is 2A supporters a form of collectivism? Can we use another example of Collectivism, something I suppose I could understand abit better. Just abit confusing.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Further update on the agent provocateur:

American Power: Charles Johnson Blames Right-Wing 'Bigotry' and 'Hatred' for Leftist Non-Profit Employee's Attack on New York Muslim Cabdriver

"Mr. Enright [the alleged attacker] is a volunteer with Intersections International, a nonprofit that works to promote cross-cultural understanding and has spoken out in favor of the proposed Islamic cultural center near ground zero. Mr. Enright, who shuffled into court with a collared t-shirt, cargo shorts and shackles around his ankles, has also worked with veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, Mr. Martin said."

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Im curious, is 2A supporters a form of collectivism? Can we use another example of Collectivism, something I suppose I could understand abit better. Just abit confusing.

If I may jump in, no. being a supporter of the 2A might be a position a large group of people agree is a good one, however the support of the individual right (as opposed to the leftist belief in a so-called "collective right") to keep and bear arms, serving (among others) the purpose of but unconnected with militia service, is not "collective" at all.

The closest right that comes to mind as being a "collective right" would be the 1A right of peaceable assembly, because one person cannot by definition "assemble" Even that, however, is an individual right. We do not have the right of assembly by virtue of being a member of a particular group but as individuals. If I stand for the 2A and wish to persuade others to do likewise, I might stand outside the State Capitol with a sign to indicate my belief. If another straight man, a lesbian, a Wiccan, Catholic, Jew, vegan, Black, White, American Indian, Conservative, Liberal, and another l/Libertarian all join me, each of us has that right of assembly and we choose to exercise it in support of the freedom of speech and of petition for redress, that right does not disappear because any person's choice to leave that group.

Another example that comes to mind would be a police officer. He has his granted powers as an officer, but along with those, he understands he takes the association with all other officers: If one errs, all are seen as guilty because the one has shown weakness in the face of temptation. A collectivist might blame them all for the actions of the one. Note that while those discussions are often had here, I don't make that statement to insult anyone.

Does that help any?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[beararms1776]

dross, I understand your point I am speaking from the American political debate.

Remember how the Left began squawking about assassination concerns over Obama in 2007?

Obama has nothing to worry about as the violence comes from the Democrats, not Republicans. Heck, the Left made a movie about killing Bush.

Look, here's yet another example: Carnahan Confirms Powers Firebomb Story

Good point Mr. Freeman

 

[beararms1776]

If I may jump in, no. being a supporter of the 2A might be a position a large group of people agree is a good one, however the support of the individual right (as opposed to the leftist belief in a so-called "collective right") to keep and bear arms, serving (among others) the purpose of but unconnected with militia service, is not "collective" at all.

The closest right that comes to mind as being a "collective right" would be the 1A right of peaceable assembly, because one person cannot by definition "assemble" Even that, however, is an individual right. We do not have the right of assembly by virtue of being a member of a particular group but as individuals. If I stand for the 2A and wish to persuade others to do likewise, I might stand outside the State Capitol with a sign to indicate my belief. If another straight man, a lesbian, a Wiccan, Catholic, Jew, vegan, Black, White, American Indian, Conservative, Liberal, and another l/Libertarian all join me, each of us has that right of assembly and we choose to exercise it in support of the freedom of speech and of petition for redress, that right does not disappear because any person's choice to leave that group.

Another example that comes to mind would be a police officer. He has his granted powers as an officer, but along with those, he understands he takes the association with all other officers: If one errs, all are seen as guilty because the one has shown weakness in the face of temptation. A collectivist might blame them all for the actions of the one. Note that while those discussions are often had here, I don't make that statement to insult anyone.

Does that help any?

Blessings,
Bill

Cool!

 

[dross]

If I may jump in, no. being a supporter of the 2A might be a position a large group of people agree is a good one, however the support of the individual right (as opposed to the leftist belief in a so-called "collective right") to keep and bear arms, serving (among others) the purpose of but unconnected with militia service, is not "collective" at all.

The closest right that comes to mind as being a "collective right" would be the 1A right of peaceable assembly, because one person cannot by definition "assemble" Even that, however, is an individual right. We do not have the right of assembly by virtue of being a member of a particular group but as individuals. If I stand for the 2A and wish to persuade others to do likewise, I might stand outside the State Capitol with a sign to indicate my belief. If another straight man, a lesbian, a Wiccan, Catholic, Jew, vegan, Black, White, American Indian, Conservative, Liberal, and another l/Libertarian all join me, each of us has that right of assembly and we choose to exercise it in support of the freedom of speech and of petition for redress, that right does not disappear because any person's choice to leave that group.

Another example that comes to mind would be a police officer. He has his granted powers as an officer, but along with those, he understands he takes the association with all other officers: If one errs, all are seen as guilty because the one has shown weakness in the face of temptation. A collectivist might blame them all for the actions of the one. Note that while those discussions are often had here, I don't make that statement to insult anyone.

Does that help any?

Blessings,
Bill

I agree with all you've said, and would add this. It's the opponents of the 2A that would make it a collective right. They use the "well ordered militia" clause as superior and defining to the "keep and bear arms" clause.

The key phrase is "right of the people" which means "group of individuals," hence an individual right.

 

[beararms1776]

How come you guys just flat out rock when it comes to these discussions. I've learned a lot and see different views and yet still stand firm on some of my own. Awesome. Words just can't describe.

 

[Ramen]

I am unable to formulate my opinion, causing a needless stir on the subject. Because of such, I dont seek to change your opinion.

I'll say that Collectivism exist, perhaps yes in Klan/Nazism - However, it's applicable to look at they're ideological opponents and see a Collectivism there, too.

Traditionalism vs Neo

Founders vs Modern

I dont see Collectivism as contrary to Individualism, but complimentry, I am perhaps out of my league, or last not on the same thought.

You have a Norwegian ancestry. They're Society only worked because of the Community, being weak or as strong as the Community pulled it's weight; Still maintaining individual rights, not too different from our own, which isnt too surprising considering the heritage of America's founding.

Im curious, is 2A supporters a form of collectivism? Can we use another example of Collectivism, something I suppose I could understand abit better. Just abit confusing.

Another way you could look at it, instead of collective vs. individual is authoritarian vs. libertarian (anarchism). The Klan and Fascism (Nazism) are extremely authoritarian. The only difference between fascism and communism is the economic view. They both rule over the individual with an iron fist.

Unfortunately, a left-right spectrum is a very poor way to classify politics, since most people view Republicans as the right and Democrats as the left when they both tend to be very authoritarian at the federal level (both parties use big government to control many aspects of citizens lives IMHO).

Another illustration of how poor a left-right spectrum is trying to place libertarians, classical liberals, and anarchists somewhere. Also, where would you put someone who is an *anarcho-socialist?

*The early Christians (Acts) seemed to have a kind of libertarian socialism where everything belonged to everyone but it was all done voluntarily. Which I guess is really just individualism because everyone was allowed to make their own choice, they just all chose the same thing...

Too many labels.... Left vs. Right does appear to be much more simple.

 

[dross]

*The early Christians (Acts) seemed to have a kind of libertarian socialism where everything belonged to everyone but it was all done voluntarily. Which I guess is really just individualism because everyone was allowed to make their own choice, they just all chose the same thing...

Too many labels.... Left vs. Right does appear to be much more simple.

There's an important distinction to be made about socialism in small groups. It's the only way it actually works. If you take a small group of people who have a very strong moral code - they believe mostly the same things and have a self-imposed discipline about following that code - and combine it with a societal code that reinforces the internal code, you can have a socialist system that somewhat works.

What happens, though, when one individual of that group violates the code or rejects it? He gets banished, or stoned, or in some other way severely punished.

That's the difference between socialist systems (even small ones) and individualist systems. Socialist systems by their nature must enforce a strict adherence to a particular code. Small or large, when the system encounters those who don't "think right" it must deal with them. Small systems banish, larger systems purge or reeducate.

Individualist systems, like capitalism, are set up so that an individual may be selfish, and his selfishness can benefit the society. Not perfectly, and some laws are needed, but under freedom and free exchange, what I do to benefit ME, usually benefits YOU. If I'm a baker, I don't bake good healthy bread out of altruism, I bake it to make money. Yet, my incentive is to bake good bread so you'll buy my bread.

No system works perfectly, but some systems don't work at all. Socialism is one of those.

 

[lashicoN]

Im curious, is 2A supporters a form of collectivism? Can we use another example of Collectivism, something I suppose I could understand abit better. Just abit confusing.

I actually believe contrary to many others here about the 2nd Amendment collectivism. I do believe we have collectivism when it comes to the 2nd Amendment in the United States.

Collectivist groups such as the NRA are seen as American's 2nd Amendment protectors, not individual gun owners, the former is the way it should be. NRA lobbies for us and challenges laws, so on and so forth. But since we have handed over power to the group, the group gets to pick and choose. The NRA has, for the most part, chosen to promote hunting instead of self defense. They promote the use of "classic firearms" such as rifles and shotguns without hi-capacity magazine and with the old hunting stocks. The group targets easy wins and makes a lot of safe bets. Some argue that the NRA is simply taking baby steps, which is probably true.

Whereas if it were individuals running the show, you would have people like me constantly barking about full-autos not being as legal as semi-autos and people like Kirk Freeman informing everyone about idiots in Broad Ripple giving him crap for open carrying his firearm instead of concealing his firearm.

The collectivist NRA is good for furthering specific things about the 2nd Amendment. Individuals are good about TALKING about furthering ALL things covered by the 2nd Amendment. Collectivists appear to get more done in this case, while individuals remain righteous about the 2nd Amendment. That's my take on what you brought up, which is a very interesting point, sir.

How come you guys just flat out rock when it comes to these discussions. I've learned a lot and see different views and yet still stand firm on some of my own. Awesome. Words just can't describe.

INGO is a pretty awesome place to come and talk about all sorts of things. I need to send in my site supporter money, because I totally mooch off this website for news and great stories that I pass on to other people. I'm 22 and I feel like INGO, which lead me to take a much closer look at our founding documents, has shaped me, somewhat, into who I am and how I feel about our country as of late. Words really can't describe what you can learn from people on this website.

 

[dross]

I actually believe contrary to many others here about the 2nd Amendment collectivism. ...Snip.

You've accidentally stepped in a file of fallacy. Semantics. Collectivism isn't an organization or a collection of individuals, it's a philosophy, the political manifestation of which is socialism.

The NRA isn't collectivist, it can't be, it can't use force. You can't be collectivist without force. It's a group of members who elect a BOD, who can join or resign, and who decides through a democratic process (by electing leaders) which issues it will fight for.

You're mixing terms and it's going to confuse people.

A group can't have rights, only a group of people with the same interests. Banding together doesn't make you collectivist.

 

[Eddie]

You've accidentally stepped in a file of fallacy. Semantics. Collectivism isn't an organization or a collection of individuals, it's a philosophy, the political manifestation of which is socialism.

The NRA isn't collectivist, it can't be, it can't use force. You can't be collectivist without force. It's a group of members who elect a BOD, who can join or resign, and who decides through a democratic process (by electing leaders) which issues it will fight for.

You're mixing terms and it's going to confuse people.

A group can't have rights, only a group of people with the same interests. Banding together doesn't make you collectivist.

I think that one litmus test for collectivism is "what happens if I don't join" or "what happens if I quit". There are no consequences to me for quitting the NRA. Choosing not to participate is an individual right.